DMs: Fight to Win or Fight for Fun?

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Sure. I, for one, would not have a ghoul perform the CDG while being beat about the head and shoulders either. I would have paralyzed the defender and CDGed them both (if possible). For me, ghouls are not about trying to "take one down with me" -- they're simply very hungry and not especially concerned about their own survival. Which does not mean that they are stupid. Again, active defender = active target.

A creature which is "simply hungry and not concerned about their own survival" would not, IMC. be one i statted as INt 13 Wis 14 and then went to making hay about how smart they are supposed to be and the calculated reasons behind their actions.

But I do not read the question as "Was there something else I could do?" I read the question as "Was what I had the NPC ghoul do unacceptable?"

I read the question as "Was I incorrect to deliver a CDG in this situation? "

to that my response is an unqualified "yes". There were not just OTHER options, but there were BETTER options... BETTER as in ones that would have produced more dramatic a scene, that would have given the PCs more opportunities to act heroically saving their friend's life, and ones that would not have plopped the PLAYERs into questioning the GM's choice of NPC actions and would have left them looking at the CHARACTER's reasonable actions.

Choosing a worse option, especially one that turns the focus to "players and GM" and not "PCs and NPCs" is incorrect, in my book.

If the question is "Was there something else I could do?", then regardless of what the DM did, the answer will always be a resounding "YES!" There are always other options.

but, when looking for correct/incorrect, the quality of those options is up for consideration.

If the question is "Was what I had the NPC do unacceptable?", then there are really two questions at hand:

(1) Is it okay for NPCs to CDG PCs? I think that it is not only acceptable, but in some circumstances it is the way to go. As always, ymmv.

No argument there. I don't see this as such a case however.

(2) Is it okay for a ghoul to ignore the defender in order to CDG the fallen? This is a far more difficult question to answer. It depends very much on the dynamic of the game and how you see/describe ghouls. "The PCs (who supposedly value their lives) CDG fallen but defended opponents" would certainly make this seem reasonable for NPCs on the surface, but the YMMV sticker is written in mile-high letters here. Overall, I would say that the ghoul probably should have simply attacked the defender first.

Whether the PCs do this or not is pretty much ireelevent to whether the NPCs will do this, IMO.

Clearly, the PCs were not CDGing the ghouls, since ghouls are immune to CDG, so this isn't a case of "the ghoul just saw you CDg his buddy so he gets some payback." The ghouls don't, presumably, know the PCs have been going 'round CDGing others, right, so that shouldn't affect their decisions.

On the other hand, if you mean that "since the PCs in other encounters use the CDG, then in future encounters its right that other enemies do it to them?" then i think personally thats going the other side of what you are worrying about. The Gm is not actively intervening to save his PCs but is instead chosing actions for NPCs based on info those NPCs don't have.

Therefore, my overall answer would be, that what the DM did was acceptable, but not the best possible solution in this particular case. But, of course, this depends entirely on how one envisions certain types of monsters,

He told us that right off, by chosing to emphasize the ghouls intelligence and go on about the reasonable, calculated justification for their choices... not once bringing in "hunger driven" in his initial justification.

and if I trusted the DM otherwise I would assume that there were reasons for the CDG here, too. Maybe that is how ghouls are in this world. I would certainly fear them more than if they only hamstrung their opponents.

I would argue that "if thats how ghouls are in the world" it would be correct Gming for the PCs to get this info or have it available to them BEFORE the lesson is taught at a PCs expense. Star TREK would have been a fairly lousy series if each time someone died to reveal the new threat it was a star instead of a redshirt.

Also, I, for one, would never have a ghoul take a hostage. Hostage-taking is completely alien to ghouls, imc.

and for me, for creatures i see as intelligent, its a certain option i don't take away from them, especially if the "alternative" is a surprising, unheroic, silly PC death.

I get the benefit to a campaign of "you do stupid things, you die" and the benefit of "think before you go after some things cuz there are things you ought not to be messing with" as well.

What i don't get is the benefit to a campaign of "bad roll, you die" or "bad roll, you are at risk, now that means my NPC will commit suicide or do whatever it takes to bring you down".

or to be more clear, when PCs have died in my games, the PLAYERS reactions have not been to question my choices, but rather to usually go "yep, saw that coming" as the reasons and actions drivien by them were consistent and understandable before the act, not ones that needed "justifying" later.

 

[Pielorinho]

A creature which is "simply hungry and not concerned about their own survival" would not, IMC. be one i statted as INt 13 Wis 14 and then went to making hay about how smart they are supposed to be and the calculated reasons behind their actions.

True--but a creature driven by an overwhelming hunger, who's smart enough and perceptive enough to realize that he's facing foes who are very unlikely to grant it any sort of quarter, who's desperate and miserable and hating life, may be smart enough to calculate that taking a hostage won't win it a reprieve from the adventurers. It may decide that it's only got two choices:
1) Die, after having killed one of its killers; or
2) Die, after having paralyzed an extra one of its killers.

or to be more clear, when PCs have died in my games, the PLAYERS reactions have not been to question my choices, but rather to usually go "yep, saw that coming" as the reasons and actions drivien by them were consistent and understandable before the act, not ones that needed "justifying" later.

Sometimes when characters take surprising actions, the players may question the action initially; but if the player comes back later to support the DM's decision, then their initial questioning does not create a black mark on the DM's record.

Daniel

 

[iwatt]

It sounds like the players left that scene thinking about "the GM" and not the scene or the bad guy and so forth. By not setting the stage before hand, by not putting the "paralyze-CDG whammy" suicidal ghoul thingy "on the mantlepiece ahead of time, the Gm made the dramatic point of the scene about HIM, the GM, and not about the in character stuff.

Actually, If you read the related rules trhead started by MACLARRAN (the player whose PC died), you can see that the players had no problem with the fact that it took the CdG on him. There was a distinct run of terrible rolls there (including miserably low action point bonuses ). The player was appaerntly more bothered with the rules for coup-de-grace than anything else. Which I agrre with, but that is another issue.

So I don't think there was a DM v/s PCs vibe at the end of the seesion.

With respect to showcasing dangerous abilities/attitudes: I compeltely agree with you. IMC I'm about to portray a Frenzied Berzerker NPC with the deatless frenzy ability, and I want to show how unkillable he is beforehand. So I'll have the PCs see the FB fighting some dwarven warriors and be "healed" back by her protector.

 

[Hjorimir]

Did you throw your arms up in the air and yell, "Victory!" That's how I do it. Sure, my players will throw dice at me for it, but it is SO worth it.

/shrug

We play to have fun and we know death is a part of the game. Undead HATE life and a chance to snuff out the life of an intruder is too good to pass up. I think I would have done the same. In fact, I have a version of zombies whose tactics and abilities lend themselves to pinning thier victims so they can CDG by eatting up some grey goodness!

My players flee from zombie hoards. Oh, and they scream while they run too.

I love this game.

 

[Templeton580]

*

 

[3catcircus]

Since most of my basic points were already answered for me, I'll address your rebuttals...

No, unless that would be appropriate in character. However, as stars of the show, the PCs appear in every scene.

Guess what - without NPCs, your PCs wouldn't have any story to star in...

The GMs characters are in their position by his, the Gms, choices. The PCs may or may not be in the situation by their choices. Thats why i said "necessarily". Sometimes it might be of their own devising, Other times, it wont be.

For the GM, it will always be.

Not so - almost always, the NPCs are in their position due to the actions or reactions of the PCs.

Wow, Ok, well, not really wanting to dredge up that old discussion, lets just say that I did not refer to the GM killing/losing his campaign or killing/losing his CAMPAIGN or ALL THE WORK he put into the campaign, just to him losing AN NPC as compared to the player losing A PC.

I might argue that if losing a single NPC is sufficient to the Gm to put the entire campaign en prise, he may well be too invested in his NPC.

So - if the campaign revolves around, for example, the PCs acting as agents of an (NPC) king, and the king gets assassinated because of PC actions (or lack therof), then it is the GMs fault? So that GM is too invested in that NPC? Players are only invested in one (in the old days, two or three) PCs at any one time. GMs *have* to be invested in every one of their NPCs for the campaign to run smoothly.

Me, i would tend to consider that when "what makes sense" is apparently at conflict with "what accomodates anyone" that I have a problem.

Why should the GM accomodate any *one* player, especially if doing so violates the basic axioms of his campaign world or conflicts with the rest of the players?

There is a huge range between "holding their hands" and the things and options we are discussing here.

If somehow you want to turn this into a discussion between "kill PCs whenever possible" and "never allow PCs to die" then thats cool but its not really the discussion i thought was going on. Its also a much less interesting one, IMO of course, since neither extreme is all that common.

The problem that I see is that, especially with the current crop of RPGs, the players *expect* that there will be very little consequence to their PCs when they make poor decisions. As in real life, there needs to be consequences for actions.

Specifically, there is a HUGE RANGOE of options, where many games are pleyed every day, between "treating PC death and NPC death the same" and "intervening at any cost to save PCs."

To give you an example of how unfairly some players in my group want the deck stacked in their favor, one of the players came up with a critical hit table that required NPCs to get a "better" dice roll than the PCs in order to effect the same results (i.e. in order to hamstring an opponent, the players could roll a 75 while the DM would have to roll a 95) and that had no insta-kill results. The DM reluctantly agreed to use it because he desired to not have any arguments. When I got a copy of SSS's Advanced Players Guide, and presented it to him, he loved it but the player who came up with his own charts whined and complained about the possibility that the DM would think of using it because it wasn't "fair."

 

[Destan]

Cutman,

I'd sorta turned this thread off in my mind because it's spiraled into gripe/counter-gripe. But I know you, have gamed with you, and respect your opinion...so your words shook me out of my self-induced lethargy. Plus, you're sorta good looking.*

Anyway, I hear you. I would contend that my players don't feel I'm "out to get them". Again, we've had one PC death in what would equate to about 10 levels of core rules gaming (4 PCs total). I do run, however, a fairly "grim" or "realistic" or whatever damned canned word we want to use campaign. In this type of campaign, a PC can and has died in combats that are not climatic showdowns. I've killed PCs with random encounters before.

Before you guys throw things at me, let me say: I understand this is not for everyone.

But you know what - it works for us. My players were fine, are fine, and will continue to be fine with the whole Ghoul Incident. Their major complaint/question had to do with a rules-related issue. Regardless, I'll admit I felt a bit guilty about killing the character with a CDG (which I had never done before). Though we played this session online, I did get the sense my players did think - if only briefly - "Uh...you sure the ghoul would do that?" So, again, that also prompted me to question my action.

Alas, I came to the boards. In my experience with EN World, you usually get your answer in the first 4-5 posts after you ask a question. If the thread continues long after that, you start to see a lot of sniping and whining and holier-than-thou B.S.

It ain't my bag, baby.

I heard some very good advice, however, which I mentioned earlier but I think bears repeating. I should have: 1) hinted to the players that Mr. Ghoul intends to do something nasty, and 2) allowed a CDG to be disrupted via a AoO (or otherwise twisted the RAW to be more 'realistic'). Not sure how/if I'll change the rules, but you folks definitely gave me some good food for thought.

For those of you who would have CDG'd the PC, we think alike. For those who would not have, we don't think alike. Our campaigns may or may not be similar. You may not like playing in my campaign. I may not like playing in yours. Your ghouls may take hostages, mine may chew brains. Why the hell does it matter? If folks around the table are having fun, continue doing what you're doing. If not, then you've got other fish to fry.

Play your campaign, I'll play mine, and we'll all be happy little dice-carrying nerds as we continue to pursue our hobby.

Back into shiftlessness mode,
D


* Pogre and Old One both meet those other pre-requisites, but failed on the 'good looking' part, so their posts were not enough to drag me back in here.

 

[swrushing]

may be smart enough to calculate that taking a hostage won't win it a reprieve from the adventurers. It may decide that it's only got two choices:
1) Die, after having killed one of its killers; or
2) Die, after having paralyzed an extra one of its killers.

I haven't seen anything to indicate why this conclusion would be reached. Perhaps the PCs had been seen by this ghoul letting their own friends die, showing "take one down with me" behavior themselves.

but such hasn't, so far, been indicated.

 

[Templeton580]

*

 

[wedgeski]

Ironically, I've had monsters run away from the players rather than fight to the death, and this seems to bother the players MORE than just outright killing PCs.

Especially if there's an XP hit involved. It became clear to me that my players enjoy closure rather than strict 'realism' in this sense. I changed my approach to suit.